A multitude of research shows that natural resources are associated with internal armed conflict. Primary commodities are, among other things, financing rebellion and increasing the incentive for secession. In addition, the resource curse is associated with corruption, slow growth and poor economic performance. The direct link between resource wealth and internal armed conflict is often explained through a greed mechanism, rebels fight to gain control over resource revenues and use resources to finance their rebellion. However, the link can also be explained by a grievance argument. People living in resource rich countries might feel deprived if vast resource income does not benefit equally across class and/or groups, and might resort to violence. Also, lack of resources might lead to competition over scarce resources, a competition that can turn violent. This paper investigates carefully the 186 internal armed conflicts in the Uppsala-PRIO dataset (19462003) to see whether they can be defined as resource conflicts, that is, whether there truly is a link between resources and conflict. We find that such resource conflicts experience shorter postconflict peace durations than non-resource conflicts. In the next step we record how natural resources management was addressed in the aftermath of all conflicts, but especially how issues related to management influence the likelihood of lasting peace following resource conflicts. Albeit fragile results it seems like resource conflicts are particular difficult to terminate and the mechanisms introduced to manage resources have not been especially helpful.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished ManuscriptAbstract: A multitude of research shows that natural resources are associated with internal armed conflict. Primary commodities are, among other things, financing rebellion and increasing the incentive for secession. In addition, the resource curse is associated with corruption, slow growth and poor economic performance. The direct link between resource wealth and internal armed conflict is often explained through a greed mechanism, rebels fight to gain control over resource revenues and use resources to finance their rebellion. However, the link can also be explained by a grievance argument. People living in resource rich countries might feel deprived if vast resource income does not benefit equally across class and/or groups, and might resort to violence. Also, lack of resources might lead to competition over scarce resources, a competition that can turn violent. This paper investigates carefully the 186 internal armed conflicts in the Uppsala-PRIO dataset (19462003) to see whether they can be defined as resource conflicts, that is, whether there truly is a link between resources and conflict. We find that such resource conflicts experience shorter postconflict peace durations than non-resource conflicts. In the next step we record how natural resources management was addressed in the aftermath of all conflicts, but especially how issues related to management influence the likelihood of lasting peace following resource conflicts. Albeit fragile results it seems like resource conflicts are particular difficult to terminate and the mechanisms introduced to manage resources have not been especially helpful.